Abortion

Cyndane · May 2005

You have absolutely no knowledge of pregnancy yet you attempt to preach to me. Quite a bit disturbing.

Your source on whether a woman has a c-section or not has to do when she comes to full term (32-38 weeks), it said NOTHING about 24 weeks, which is the second trimester (end of it).

At week number 24, the fetus is in breach position, (the legs are first and facing the vaginal opening). If one were to perform a c-section (horizontal) the doctor would be required to grab the legs, and there is a very good chance the fetus head would be crushed due to the skull being VERY maleable (Soft, the bone is not hard, which is why the mayans directly after birth could shape their babies heads like cones, that was a side note but demostrates my point very well.)

My souce is a government site, not to mention my OBGYN nurse, doctor, and family that are in that profession. (Yes, I actually called my doctor and he was ahored that someone would even consider attempting a horizontal c-section at 24 weeks.)

<a href='http://www.4woman.gov/Pregnancy/second.htm' target='_blank'>Second Trimester</a>

You can NOT perform a horizontal c-section at 24 weeks, you endanger both the mother and the potential baby. (More so to the baby since it is smaller then normal and usually even weaker then when born normally.) (Complications include pentrating the skull, crushing the brain, spine cord snapping, umbilical cord strangulation(which hurts the mother as much)

Not only have you failed to actually read anything that indicates what pregnancy does to a woman, you ignore when medical journals(and professionals) do not agree with you.

If that isn't narrowmindedness I do not know what is.

CMEast · May 2005

Steeltroll: For a start I personally never said it was 'fine'. However you have to accept the fact that even if you were some how suddenly crowned king of the world and could guarentee foster care/adoption for kids, illegalised abortion, raised the general level of sex education etc you would still end up with illegal abortions taking place, do you agree? Or will you continue to disagree despite all of the evidence in front of you?

If abortions are going to continue to be a <i>fact</i> of life then legalising them is the only sane way. If you still increase the budgets for fostering and adoption ages, educate everyone about contraceptives etc then numbers of abortion will drop but making it illegal will do nothing but kill mothers as well as children.

Do you agree again?

That means that all we can do, no matter how distasteful the idea, is accept the fact that humans will die. Now you are right in that we will forever disagree, I am able to accept the fact that abortion will happen whereas you, so far, cannot. As you are inable to actually give a valid reason as to why illegalising abortion will do anything more than kill thousands and thousands of desperate mothers that is the end of the discussion I'm think. I'm more than happy to agree with you that it's a shame that abortions happen but I I'm afraid I can't just start arguing for woman to lose their ability to choose what happens to their bodies, even if it does affect a bunch of cells/miracle of human life/thinking feeling baby.

Filthy Larry: Fine, lets make a deal. I'll shut up about netiquette if you stop insulting people for no reason instead of discussing as this forum is for. The reason I was amused is because your mention of whether she could take the same attitude if she were pregnant is a valid point which she subverted by saying she couldn't get pregnant, you should have stuck by your point as you did nothing wrong whatsoever. That is what I found amusing.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh and 'Intellectually bankrupt' does not mean dishonest, it means stupid. If you wish to insult people do it more accurately or better, not at all.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And how exactly is that insulting you? I will not get into arguing semantics and I've had to defend myself far more than I planned here. Simply put, 'here' being the discussion forums where flames aren't appreciated either.

Ok, fine, as you reworded your point then I will agree that every woman should think about what she is doing before she has an abortion, it's very difficult not to think about that kind of decision I would have thought.

FilthyLarry · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 7 2005, 03:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Filthy Larry: Fine, lets make a deal. I'll shut up about netiquette if you stop insulting people for no reason instead of discussing as this forum is for. The reason I was amused is because your mention of whether she could take the same attitude if she were pregnant is a valid point which she subverted by saying she couldn't get pregnant, you should have stuck by your point as you did nothing wrong whatsoever. That is what I found amusing.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

A cease fire is absolutely fine by me East. Keep in mind though, that by the time you commented all was said and done.

I agree with you that there should be less insulting done on these boards and more substance. However, I do tend to respond in kind to how I am treated as I feel that respect should be earned and not deserved.

As far as Cydane is concerned I assumed she had revealed that fact about her before, meaning that I was aware before I made the comment I did. In this case it would have been rather tasteless and I wanted to make clear that I had no prior knowledge. Whether a true apology was warranted or not I am at heart a decent guy you know? I'm really sorry to hear things like that.

The point was valid however, and I did not retract it, but did not push it either.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh and 'Intellectually bankrupt' does not mean dishonest, it means stupid. If you wish to insult people do it more accurately or better, not at all.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And how exactly is that insulting you? I will not get into arguing semantics and I've had to defend myself far more than I planned here. Simply put, 'here' being the discussion forums where flames aren't appreciated either.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Oh come now East. Surely you were not playing "concerned citizen" again when you pointed out my failure to grasp the Queen's english.?

But again: more than happy to bury the hatchet here.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Ok, fine, as you reworded your point then I will agree that every woman should think about what she is doing before she has an abortion, it's very difficult not to think about that kind of decision I would have thought.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is all that I ask, to truly think about the decision, and not to think in terms of euphemisms.

Steel_Troll · May 2005

Ok Cydane, my sources were wrong. A baby can not be delivered by horizontal c-section at 24 weeks. Although it can be delivered vaginaly.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Premature babies have less time to fully develop and mature in the womb. As a result, they're often at increased risk of medical and developmental problems. One of the biggest problems facing premature infants is underdeveloped lungs.

Your doctor may try to delay your baby's birth if you go into labor earlier than around 34 weeks into your pregnancy (preterm labor). Even a few extra days in the womb can give your baby's lungs a chance to become more mature. But sometimes, in spite of every effort, your baby may be born early.

Fortunately, the outlook for premature infants has improved dramatically in recent years. Great advances have been made in the care of premature infants, and even babies born as early as 23 weeks now have a good chance of survival.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"Preemies are born vaginally unless medically contraindicated.Since preemies are so small... many can be born vaginally with little additional trauma. "</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

However, us discussing wether a premature baby can survive stemed from nem0's question

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemo)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(what of)Biophilosophical questions regarding a fetus' status as seperate organism (what you ignore in the 24 weeks example you cite is the tremendous technical effort in bringing these children over, and the often tremendous damage they take nonetheless).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

What i was trying to show is that even though a baby is dependent on the mother, it is still a separate being with its own DNA, own blood group and own personality. It therefore must have rights.

Just coz it cannot speak for itself, it is therefore "convenient" to lable it as expendable.

CMEast, i agree illegal abortions would still take place. Let the ones who do then be liable for it. Illealisation would mean less women would think of it as their first stop, meaning a reduction in the number of abortions.

I am also able to accept the fact that abortion will happen.Even if illigalixsation will occur. But as i said before, these numbers would be reduced significantly due to a general better awareness..

The woman has a right to chose what happens to her body, but she has in my mind no right to chose what happens to the child/foetus/baby. It is not her life o her body.

We will always disagree.

Venmoch · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ May 8 2005, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The woman has a right to chose what happens to her body, but she has in my mind no right to chose what happens to the child/foetus/baby. It is not her life or her body.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Whoa! Hold on there sparky.

You do realise that a foetus/baby is a parasitic organism and needs the mother to slupply food/nutrients and immune care. And in some cases this parasitic relationship can cause illness and possibly in some cases death to the mother. The thing is, for the most part (Or at least until the baby is actully born) the child is attached to the mother, (Hell the damn things inside her).

So whats your stance on abortion if the mother is in serious danger of dying because of the baby in her womb. I'd rather go for the lesser of two evils if I can save lives.

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ May 8 2005, 08:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Ok Cydane, my sources were wrong. A baby can not be delivered by horizontal c-section at 24 weeks. Although it can be delivered vaginaly.

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Very good, it is nice to know you can admit when you are wrong, albiet it took you close to five pages.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (steelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Premature babies have less time to fully develop and mature in the womb. As a result, they're often at increased risk of medical and developmental problems. One of the biggest problems facing premature infants is underdeveloped lungs.

Your doctor may try to delay your baby's birth if you go into labor earlier than around 34 weeks into your pregnancy (preterm labor). Even a few extra days in the womb can give your baby's lungs a chance to become more mature. But sometimes, in spite of every effort, your baby may be born early.

Fortunately, the outlook for premature infants has improved dramatically in recent years. Great advances have been made in the care of premature infants, and even babies born as early as 23 weeks now have a good chance of survival.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"Preemies are born vaginally unless medically contraindicated.Since preemies are so small... many can be born vaginally with little additional trauma. "</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://topics-az.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id=577)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Two drugs based on natural substances made in the woman's body are used for induction. One of these substances is what's called prostaglandin. It can be placed inside the **** or cervix and acts by ripening the cervix in preparation for labor. It may also cause contractions. In nature, prostaglandins are found in many body tissues and secretions. A rich natural source of prostaglandins is semen. The other substance used to induce labor is synthetic oxytocin, known as Pitocin. Oxytocin is a pituitary hormone which causes contractions of the uterus. Oxytocin is released by a woman's pituitary at three important times: during labor, during sexual excitement and orgasm, and during breastfeeding. Recent studies have also shown an increase in oxytocin release during loving encounters of any kind with other people. When labor is induced in the hospital, Pitocin is given intravenously, carefully controlled by an infusion pump apparatus. The mother's contractions and the baby's heart rate are watched closely to assure that the contractions are not becoming too close, too strong, or lasting too long in response to this medication.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Finding a list of the drugs used to induce birth is a lot harder then it looks.

If you wish a fetus to be born at 24 weeks, without it causing (the birth) itself, then you would need to induce labor. If the induced birth drugs do not work(which is very likely at an early stage) then you would require a c-section. Some babies (very small percentage) are not in the breach position which is why they can be delivered vaginally. Again, this is as rare as the uterian anomalies (read 5-8% according to 2004 stats) (which I never said was common to start with). Forcing any woman to carry a child that long when she does not want to is stupid. (That would be the acceptable amount of time before the fetus can be on its own with minor help.)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steeltroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
However, us discussing wether a premature baby can survive stemed from nem0's question

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemo)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>(what of)Biophilosophical questions regarding a fetus' status as seperate organism (what you ignore in the 24 weeks example you cite is the tremendous technical effort in bringing these children over, and the often tremendous damage they take nonetheless).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

What i was trying to show is that even though a baby is dependent on the mother, it is still a separate being with its own DNA, own blood group and own personality. It therefore must have rights.

Just coz it cannot speak for itself, it is therefore "convenient" to lable it as expendable.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The fetus has no personality untill it has learned ANYTHING. What makes us develop the personalities is when we learn about our enviroment, prior to birth the fetus has no experience with its surroundings (considering it is protected within the placenta and the amniotic fluid.) Any movements felt by the mother (not neglecting the importance of them after all that usually means the mother wants the potential child that much more) are strictly instinctual, there is no personality there. Speaking is not a requirement of personality, just look at dogs and cats, there are many different types of personalities among them and they can't speak (at least not so we understand them).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SteelTroll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
CMEast, i agree illegal abortions would still take place. Let the ones who do then be liable for it. Illealisation would mean less women would think of it as their first stop, meaning a reduction in the number of abortions.

I am also able to accept the fact that abortion will happen.Even if illigalixsation will occur. But as i said before, these numbers would be reduced significantly due to a general better awareness..

The woman has a right to chose what happens to her body, but she has in my mind no right to chose what happens to the child/foetus/baby. It is not her life o her body.

We will always disagree.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

If you were to make abortions illegal, not only would the number NOT go down, but it would increase the chances of killing both the potential child and the mother, as brazil and south africa has demostrated nicely.

There is no evidence that abortions would go down if they were illegal.

So the big question is, are YOU willing to sacrifice both the mother and the child instead of just one?

Steel_Troll · May 2005

There is also no evidence that abortions would go up.

I do not want to sacrifice both. Although there would be a reduced number due to all the counselling, education, information which would be put in place, the sad thing is some mothers would still be wiling, and do months in prison after (Which would be more than the time needed to bear the baby to full term).

A baby does have rapidly developing personality, as early as 24 weeks

<a href='http://www.caringpregnancycenter.net/baby.html' target='_blank'>http://www.caringpregnancycenter.net/baby.html</a>

18 weeks - Fetus has phases of sleep and waking and may prefer a favorite sleep position, temporary hair called lanugo appears on the head.

20 weeks - Fetus may suck on thumb. Extremely rapid brain growth; eyebrows and scalp hair become more visible and fetus blinks more often.

24 weeks - Fetal brain waves begin to activate auditory and visual systems, both mouth and lips show more sensitivity. Eyes respond to light, while ears respond to sounds originating outside uterus.

<a href='http://www.activebirthcentre.com/pb/prbondingwithyourbaby.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.activebirthcentre.com/pb/prbond...hyourbaby.shtml</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>" Sleeping, waking and dreaming

Your baby’s mental capacities are developing in the womb and there are periods of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep which is associated with dreaming. In late pregnancy up to 80% of the time your baby sleeps is spent dreaming, whereas in later life dream sleep periods drop progressively.

While you are pregnant you will have many clues as to your child’s developing personality in terms of periods of wakefulness and sleep and the way your baby moves. Actions and movements

Your baby constantly responds to the movements and rhythms of your body and is aware of the rhythms of your heart beating and the movements caused by your breathing. This stimulates movement.

Awareness
Babies are aware of the presence of the placenta and like to face or turn towards it.... Perhaps they are comforted by the warm, pulsating rhythms of the blood flowing between the placenta and the umbilical chord. Later on this link with the placenta will be transferred to the breast.

Studies show that the baby's heart rate speeds up when you speak or sing,... By the time of birth your voices will already very familiar to your baby who will recognise you partly through being accustomed already to the sound of your voice.

...
Your baby is certainly already acutely aware in the womb and responds to stimuli through movement. Mental capacity and personality are already developing and you may recognise certain qualities your baby has as a person even before the birth."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

A foetus has a rapidly developing awareness and personality. I find thee greatest testament to this is that all foetuses who are killed via the Dilatation & Curettage , Dilatation & Evacuation and most other abortion methods, will wriggle and try and move away from the vacum heads / pliers / scaples used .

The baby is dependent of the mother, it is a separate being with its own DNA, own blood group and own rapidly developing personality and awareness. It therefore must have rights.

OT: **** im going to fail my chemistry mock on monday due to this damn thread... <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

Steel_Troll · May 2005

Oh and Venmoch :

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> (Steel Troll @ May 8 2005, 02:52 PM)
The woman has a right to chose what happens to her body, but she has in my mind no right to chose what happens to the child/foetus/baby. It is not her life or her body.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Whoa! Hold on there sparky.

You do realise that a foetus/baby is a parasitic organism and needs the mother to slupply food/nutrients and immune care. And in some cases this parasitic relationship can cause illness and possibly in some cases death to the mother. The thing is, for the most part (Or at least until the baby is actully born) the child is attached to the mother, (Hell the damn things inside her).

So whats your stance on abortion if the mother is in serious danger of dying because of the baby in her womb. I'd rather go for the lesser of two evils if I can save lives. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Covered earlier on... The first post in this thread actually...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
women's rights vs unborn baby's rights

Discuss

My views, abortion should be baned <b>except</b> in extreme circumstances

eg
1) Mother has been raped (Termination only before 14 weeks)
[B]2) Serious threat to mothers life[B]</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And the cases in which the baby can cause the mother problems are very rare. You are more likely to :

Die in a...
Disabling accident at home 1 in 81
airplane crash 1 in 4,000
Cancer 1-in-7
Stroke 1-in-23
A ccidental Injury 1-in-36
Motor Vehicle Accident 1-in-100
Intentional Self-harm (suicide) 1-in-121
Falling Down 1-in-246
Assault by Firearm 1-in-325
Fire or Smoke 1-in-1,116
Natural Forces (heat, cold, storms, quakes, etc.)1-in-3,357
Electrocution 1-in-5,000
Drowning 1-in-8,942

Than die due to a pregnancy as the :
pregnancy related death rate is 1.75-in-12,500

TommyVercetti · May 2005

It's still their life... er... risk to take.

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ May 8 2005, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> *snip*  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Not even going to bother (with the personality part) it took me five pages to tell you something that is obvious to everyone but yourself. I refuse to deal with that again.

As for abortions going up? I never said they would. They would probably remain the same although instead of killing one potential human you would be killing possibly one human and one potential as evideced by brazil and south africa.

You truly disgust me.

Aegeri · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 8 2005, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ May 8 2005, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> *snip* </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not even going to bother (with the personality part) it took me five pages to tell you something that is obvious to everyone but yourself. I refuse to deal with that again.

As for abortions going up? I never said they would. They would probably remain the same although instead of killing one potential human you would be killing possibly one human and one potential as evideced by brazil and south africa.

You truly disgust me. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I see you've decided to let him wallow in his own ignorance too.

Also, you would be right, as my studies already proved (though as I predicted, steel troll does not bother reading peoples references or even their posts) that there is little correlation between an increase in overall abortion and legalisation. There is a direct correlation with the number of self-abortions and if abortion is illegal. In other words, <b>the rates are roughly the same for legalised/non-legalised countries</b>.

I already buried every one of his arguments earlier in the thread, there isn't any need to go on smacking a corpse.

Venmoch · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ May 8 2005, 10:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> And the cases in which the baby can cause the mother problems are very rare. You are more likely to :

Die in a...
Disabling accident at home 1 in 81
airplane crash 1 in 4,000
Cancer 1-in-7
Stroke 1-in-23
A ccidental Injury 1-in-36
Motor Vehicle Accident 1-in-100
Intentional Self-harm (suicide) 1-in-121
Falling Down 1-in-246
Assault by Firearm 1-in-325
Fire or Smoke 1-in-1,116
Natural Forces (heat, cold, storms, quakes, etc.)1-in-3,357
Electrocution 1-in-5,000
Drowning 1-in-8,942

Than die due to a pregnancy as the :
pregnancy related death rate is 1.75-in-12,500 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think these odds may be slightly biased. Because, as far as I can tell only women can die from pregnancy related complications.

As far as I know none of the odds you quoted only happen to women. Besides quoting facts doesn't hide the fact THAT IT HAPPENS! Just because something is very unlikely that something might happen doesn't mean it can't. Besides do we also count a baby that a woman cannot feasibly support as something that could endanger the mother?

My personal opinion is that if women want to get rid of the thing growing in their womb, fine go for it. I'd rather end up with a system that allows women to abortion to a system that promotes the abandoning of children to other (Usually state funded) homeless schemes.

And the idea that a load of women will start having unprotected sex without thinking about the problems it could cause because they can just have an abortion is a silly and frankly almost sexist claim. Women are intelligent they can think rationally, and besides the threat of an STD is enough to warrant using contraception. And anyway if more babies are going to be made because loads of women want to have hot horny sex with loads of men why don't we just sterilise all the men. Or encourage the women to have hot horny sex with other women.....

But I digress. My support stems from my belief that everyone is equal. (Yes thats right, I'm Communist. And one of the beliefs in Communism is that women are equal to men and are able to make their own minds up about things related to them.)

Legionnaired · May 2005

This has no doubt been a long and flame-filled thread, so I'm only poking my head in for a quick gander...

Have Marquis' or Thompson's arguments been brought up here yet? The 'Future-Like-Ours' debate, namely?

I just did a quick search, and it doesn't appear it. I'll sum up here briefly; I have access to an electronic copy from a philosophy journal but the material is copywrighted.

Marquis contends an abortion is wrong, simply because a fetus is among a class of things that has the possibility of having a future of value. That is, a future filled with events and actions that would, retrospectively, make that life worth having been lived. Because of this, a fetus has a right to life, just as we do. The great tradgedy of our premature deaths would not be that our life has lost anything, since what we have already done would not change, but rather, we have been denied the ability to live out our own lives in the future.

I don't think anyone will really contest the idea that we shouldn't go around killing fetuses for the fun of it. The debate comes, when we consider: does the fetus have a right to be attached what is essentially parasitically to the mother for a good nine months? Thompson would argue that it does not have this right. She claims it is along the lines of us, during sleep, having been attached to a famous violinist in such a way that we are required for them to survive. Though that violinist has a right to life, we also have the right to do with our bodies as we wish, and as such, we have the right to disconnect ourselves from the violinist.

I find the synthesis of these two arguments to be rather interesting.

Suppose there were a procedure that at only 6 weeks, could remove the fetus(here referring to the embryo, but for the sake of simplicity) at little discomfort to the mother, with the fetus being grown either inside another willing mother, or inside an artificial womb until term. This would be like being asked to give blood to save the life of someone badly in need of a transfusion. We, as a society, would readily regard the person that turned their back instead of giving blood. It is a small price to pay for a much greater good.

Now, imagine the same procedure is available at 180 days, and again at 250 days. Over time, the pro-choice side of the debate seems to concede that an abortion, say, a week before the expected due date is universally wrong; we regard as a person the fetus, even though it hasn't been born yet. Day 180 may find itself on shaky ground, and at 42 days, we seem to think that abortions would be permissable.

Thus, there must be, according to the pro-choice standpoint, a point on this continum where abortions would become impermissable. Consequentially, a day before this point, they would think that abortions are permissable.

However, nothing about our perspectives on the subject shapes the truth of the matter, that this 'point of impermissability' is arbitrarily based on our perceptions. We would not think that much of a difference between day 269 and 270, so our perception is purely based on a think which we know not for sure, and we have established after we have already formed our opinions about.

In short, the pro-choice side of things clamors for an arbitrary point they can use to make their position popular. Of course, to be fair, the Pro-Life side of things generally clings to religious arguments, and only really leaves this foundation when they realize how unpopular those arguments are as well.

Let the flaming begin.

theclam · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Marquis contends an abortion is wrong, simply because a fetus is among a class of things that has the possibility of having a future of value. That is, a future filled with events and actions that would, retrospectively, make that life worth having been lived. Because of this, a fetus has a right to life, just as we do. The great tradgedy of our premature deaths would not be that our life has lost anything, since what we have already done would not change, but rather, we have been denied the ability to live out our own lives in the future.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't find Marquis' argument convincing, since sperm and eggs are also among the class of things that have the possiblity of having a future of value.

Frankly, I don't find abortion immoral, because a fetus doesn't suffer psychologically at the thought of death. Now, obviously, at some point a fetus does become self-aware and does suffer psychologically at the thought of death. That would be the moment when abortion becomes wrong. Now if abortion should be legal, there obviously has to be a point before which an abortion is legal, and after which an abortion is illegal. I don't know when to set that point, but I find the arbitrariness of that discomforting, just like you do. Still, we set arbitrary points for dozens of other legal issues (e.g. stealing less than $X is a misdemeanor, but stealing more than $X is a felony), so I think it's consistent with our other legal ideals to set an arbitrary point for abortion.

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ May 9 2005, 10:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Suppose there were a procedure that at only 6 weeks, could remove the fetus(here referring to the embryo, but for the sake of simplicity) at little discomfort to the mother, with the fetus being grown either inside another willing mother, or inside an artificial womb until term. This would be like being asked to give blood to save the life of someone badly in need of a transfusion. We, as a society, would readily regard the person that turned their back instead of giving blood. It is a small price to pay for a much greater good.

Now, imagine the same procedure is available at 180 days, and again at 250 days. Over time, the pro-choice side of the debate seems to concede that an abortion, say, a week before the expected due date is universally wrong; we regard as a person the fetus, even though it hasn't been born yet. Day 180 may find itself on shaky ground, and at 42 days, we seem to think that abortions would be permissable.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
There is no flaming needed Legionaired.

Currently there is no precedure that would allow the woman to have a child for say six weeks and not require a c-section (see above posts) and thereby hurting the mother more then evidenced by some posts. If there was one that was invented, so they could move that clump of cells you would still have a potential baby and no one would want it. Which is one of the reasons why there are lots of children in foster care still.

Personally, if I knew that I was grown up outside of my mother, because she didn't want me that would be one hell of a blow to ones emotinal side. We would have to perfect a way to tell someone they weren't wanted without destroying them completely. As we all grow older we grow more aware of things up to a certain point. I do hope you can agree that if someone were to find this out it would be one heck of a blow to their "confidence" that they were wanted to be there.

Legionnaired · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 10 2005, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Marquis contends an abortion is wrong, simply because a fetus is among a class of things that has the possibility of having a future of value. That is, a future filled with events and actions that would, retrospectively, make that life worth having been lived. Because of this, a fetus has a right to life, just as we do. The great tradgedy of our premature deaths would not be that our life has lost anything, since what we have already done would not change, but rather, we have been denied the ability to live out our own lives in the future.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't find Marquis' argument convincing, since sperm and eggs are also among the class of things that have the possiblity of having a future of value.

Frankly, I don't find abortion immoral, because a fetus doesn't suffer psychologically at the thought of death. Now, obviously, at some point a fetus does become self-aware and does suffer psychologically at the thought of death. That would be the moment when abortion becomes wrong. Now if abortion should be legal, there obviously has to be a point before which an abortion is legal, and after which an abortion is illegal. I don't know when to set that point, but I find the arbitrariness of that discomforting, just like you do. Still, we set arbitrary points for dozens of other legal issues (e.g. stealing less than $X is a misdemeanor, but stealing more than $X is a felony), so I think it's consistent with our other legal ideals to set an arbitrary point for abortion.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Legally, sure. However, I'd rather see the legality of this issue set at either one side of the spectrum or the other, or so far towards conception there would be no chance of ending a sentient being's life.

Currently, abortions up to 90 days cannot be restricted, and they can be regulated after then, with partial birth abortions only bannable in areas where a third-term abortion is also impermissable.

As the lesser of two evils, I'd rather see widespread use of Plan B contraceptives, and ban abortion all together.

Back to defending Marquis, the sperm or egg in and of itself has no possibility of having a future. It must be changed at a critical and fundamental level in order to have the possibilty of becoming sentient. I believe Marquis' defends this point himself:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"Some appeals to potentiality in the abortion debate rest on unsound inferences. For example, one may try to generate an argument against abortion by arguing that because persons have the right to life, potential persons also have the right to life. [...] This argument is plainly false. Potential presidents don't have the rights of the presidency; potential voters don't have the right to vote.

In the FLO argument, potentiality is not used in order to bridge the gap between adults and fetuses as is done in the argument in the above paragraph. The FLO theory of the wrongness of killing adults is based upon the adult's potentiality to have a future of value. Potentiality is in the agument from the very beginning. Thus, the plainly false premise is not required. Accordingly, the use of potentiality in the FLO theory is not a sign of an illegitamate inference."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This addresses it, but he addresses contraception specificially as well:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>"The strongest objection to the FLO argument for the immorality of abortion is based on the claim that, because contraception results in one less FLO, the FLO argument entails that contraception, indeed, abstention from sex when conception is possible, is immoral. Because neither contraception nor abstention from ssex when conception is possible is immoral, the FLO account is flawed.

There is a cogent reply to this objection.
If the argument of the early part of this essay is correct, then the central issue concerning the morality of abortion is the problem of whether fetus are individuals who are members of the class of individuals whom it is seriously presumptively wrong to kill. [...] The central claim of this essay is that having a FLO marks off the relevant class of individuals. A defender of the FLO view could, therefore, reply that since at the time of contraception there is no individual to posess a FLO, the FLO account does not entail that contraception is wrong.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There's a further point-counter point here, but I won't bother to re-type the next page of it, this should be enough to facilitate discussion for now.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Personally, if I knew that I was grown up outside of my mother, because she didn't want me that would be one hell of a blow to ones emotinal side. We would have to perfect a way to tell someone they weren't wanted without destroying them completely. As we all grow older we grow more aware of things up to a certain point. I do hope you can agree that if someone were to find this out it would be one heck of a blow to their "confidence" that they were wanted to be there.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, then you get into some utilitarianism. Is it better to kill a child, or let it know it's not wanted? One can still live a fulfilling life in the face of adversity. Depriving someone of the chance to have a crack at life is a far greater wrong than dealing them a bad hand to begin with.

Cyndane · May 2005

Yet, when you ban abortion completely even with Plan B contraceptives, they will still take place. Instead of having one potential human gone, you could very well lose two of them.

I don't understand why some do not "get" the message here. By banning abortion completely you pretty much guarntee more pregnancy related deaths, because women will and have taken matters into their own hands.

I'd rather not kill one potential person and one person.

lolfighter · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Depriving someone of the chance to have a crack at life is a far greater wrong than dealing them a bad hand to begin with.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>... which is essentially saying that "all life is valuable." Essentially, you're saying that (or so I interpret your words) any life is worth living. On the other hand, I say that a child deserves nothing less than to be born into a family that loves it. If that cannot be provided, which it <u>can't</u> if an abortion is desired (after all, wanting an abortion means that you would prefer not to bear out your child), I say that the child deserves the (bitter) mercy of being spared birth. A bitter mercy is mercy nonetheless.

Edit: And to back Cyndane a little: In past times, because of the risks of an abortion induced under unsafe conditions, women would bear out their children, then leave them for the wolves. I'm not sure that I like a forced return to that by banning/hindering abortion, even though I'm sure the wolves would...

Legionnaired · May 2005

Murders are going to happen independant of the legality of it or not. We acknowledge the immorality of it by banning it.

If people want to break the law by aborting their own children, then the possible consequences are their own, not the state's.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>... which is essentially saying that "all life is valuable." Essentially, you're saying that (or so I interpret your words) any life is worth living. On the other hand, I say that a child deserves nothing less than to be born into a family that loves it. If that cannot be provided, which it can't if an abortion is desired (after all, wanting an abortion means that you would prefer not to bear out your child), I say that the child deserves the (bitter) mercy of being spared birth. A bitter mercy is mercy nonetheless.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And I say that nobody has the right to tell someone else their life has been, or will have been meaningless. I was born into a family that has an excruciatingly hard time accepting my faith and how I've gone about practicing it. Would you say that I should have been taken from them as soon as I converted?

You cannot have a mercy-killing of something that either is not yet sentient, or could not possibly understand the circumstances and possibilities of their own future.

Cyndane · May 2005

Yes, instead of allowing the clinics to perform abortions. Lets have the women do that themselves and when they are almost dead they will go to the hospital after the abortion is complete. Therefore causing even more stress on our already stressed out healthcare system.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

lolfighter · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ May 10 2005, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [...]And I say that nobody has the right to tell someone else their life has been, or will have been meaningless. I was born into a family that has an excruciatingly hard time accepting my faith and how I've gone about practicing it. Would you say that I should have been taken from them as soon as I converted?[...]  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I did not say that, and I wouldn't say that. I also fail to see how you made that particular logic leap.

Legionnaired · May 2005

Cyndane: Your argument:

1)Women will get abortions no matter what.
1a)Abortions may be wrong.
2)Abortions will be safer if they are legalized.
3)Therefore, because of consequentialism, we should legalize abortion, even though it might be wrong action.

My argument:

1)Abortions are wrong no matter what.
1a)Some women will get abortions no matter what.
2)Thus, some women will act immorally no matter what.
3)To condone an immoral action is intrinsically immoral.
4)To make accomodations for an immoral practice is inherantly immoral, and should not be done.

The big difference between you and I is the framework for our ethics. You have a more consequentialist/utilitarian approach, I see things more in absolutes, catagorical imperatives, and divine commands.

Consider the following example:

A) I can kill 1 person to save 2.
B) I can kill 1 person to save 1,000,000.

In both the examples, the cost is the same. Even though we intrinsically feel that killing a person against their will is wrong, we also feel that the needs of 1,000,000 outweigh the needs of the one we are killing. Thus, killing in this case might be thought to be justified. Assume, for the sake of argument, that we think killing one for two is immoral.

Where is the distinction between saving 2 and saving 5? What about 5 and 25? How about 25 and 1,000? The fact is: if there is a gray area, there will be a point where an action will be percieved as more white than black. Since our knowledge is subjective, and since we cannot know for sure all the possible consequences and factors, this point is at the end of the day a rather arbitrary one. Why not that point X +1? Why not X - 1?

If we are to set an arbitrary 'point of impermissability,' we must not set it at any point where there could be the preception that an action on the 'permissable' side of things would be impermissable, and vis-versa.

Since we admittedly say that there are shades of gray, the ratio of benifit/cost at which this point must be set would be a limit at infinity, where the infinate ammount of lives above overshadows the one life below. This is impossible, and thusly, so is establishing a firm point at which we can make these right judgement calls.

Is an absolute yes or no not needed? Then there are no ethics at all! If we are unable to say an action is right or not in the first place, what point is there to discussing them?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( lolfighter)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I did not say that, and I wouldn't say that. I also fail to see how you made that particular logic leap.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Assume a case where a child would be born into an family who did not want it, and would not offer it emotional support. You contend that you know for certain the child would not want to be born were it faced with these circumstances. I contend that there is no possible way to know that, and as such, we cannot make that judgement. My stance is reinforced by the presence of people who choose to live lives in the face of adversity anyway. I then offered myself as an example.

Cyndane · May 2005

Let me adjust my "arguement" for you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Cyndane: Your argument:

1)Women will get abortions no matter what.
2)Abortions ARE safer if they are legalized.
3)Therefore, because of consequentialism, we should legalize abortion.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
1)Abortions are wrong no matter what.
1a)Some women will get abortions no matter what.
2)Thus, some women will act immorally no matter what.
3)To condone an immoral action is intrinsically immoral.
4)To make accomodations for an immoral practice is inherantly immoral, and should not be done.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Those are the two opinions for us.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The big difference between you and I is the framework for our ethics. You have a more consequentialist/utilitarian approach, I see things more in absolutes, catagorical imperatives, and divine commands.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Supposed divine commands mean absolutely nothing to me, if you haven't noticed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Consider the following example:

A) I can kill 1 person to save 2.
B) I can kill 1 person to save 1,000,000.

In both the examples, the cost is the same. Even though we intrinsically feel that killing a person against their will is wrong, we also feel that the needs of 1,000,000 outweigh the needs of the one we are killing. Thus, killing in this case might be thought to be justified. Assume, for the sake of argument, that we think killing one for two is immoral.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The example would be more like this...

Abortion is legal:
A)We can kill one potential person, while the woman can still have children later on.

Abortion is illegal: (Abortion rate will remain the same, just not as safe)
A)We can kill two people, and since the woman is dead no more children from her.

Hmm... two... for... one...
Yet when it is legal and the woman is ready she can have children then, and they will be loved. Your arguement makes no sense, still.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Is an absolute yes or no not needed? Then there are no ethics at all! If we are unto say an action is right or not in the first place, what point is there to discussing them?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
There is an absolute, and it isn't going to change anytime soon, it is legal, end of story. I wish the countries that have it illegal would wake up and start making it safer. Therein lies the problem.

I won't touch on the last one, for I feel it is too personal for me.

Legionnaired · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There is an absolute, and it isn't going to change anytime soon, it is legal, end of story. I wish the countries that have it illegal would wake up and start making it safer. Therein lies the problem.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Moral permissability != Legality.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Abortion is legal:
A)We can kill one potential person, while the woman can still have children later on.

Abortion is illegal: (Abortion rate will remain the same, just not as safe)
A)We can kill two people, and since the woman is dead no more children from her.

Hmm... two... for... one...
Yet when it is legal and the woman is ready she can have children then, and they will be loved. Your arguement makes no sense, still.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As I've already stated, those potential children in the form of ovum don't have any right to anything, just as a potential president would not have the right to be president, and a potential voter would not have the right to vote. They must be changed at a fundamental and critical level, and thus, have no moral standing.

Thus, all we are left with is the argument that we can allow a morally impermissable action, in the intrest of doing less harm in the long run. I am not interested in what harm comes of ethics. I am interested in what those ethics are. A right action with wrong consequences is still a wrong action.

Besides, your argument is based on a false dilemma. You claim that a woman will get an abortion no matter what, and some women will die doing it in an unsafe manner.

I contend that a woman can rationally choose that carrying a child to term would spare both her life and the life of her child. Even if the kid grows up in a foster home, it's better than death. There IS a third alternative.

It seems like you're conceding that abortion is immoral wherever found, just that we should tolerate it anyway. Can I draw this conclusion, or should we hash that out first?

theclam · May 2005

I have to say that you're wrong, Cyndane.

<a href='http://www.rtl.org/html/Abortion/abortion_stats.html' target='_blank'>http://www.rtl.org/html/Abortion/abortion_stats.html</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In 1978, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology stated the legalization of abortion "has had no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion" since the results of a study they completed showed that over 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<a href='http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-medical-social-benefits.xml' target='_blank'>http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/porta...al-benefits.xml</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> * In 1965, when abortion was still illegal nationwide except in cases of life endangerment, at least 193 women died from illegal abortions, and illegal abortion accounted for nearly 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth in that year (NCHS, 1967).

* In 1973, the risk of dying from an abortion was 3.4 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions. This rate fell to 1.3 by 1977 (Gold, 1990). Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures, and the current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestation is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. This is eleven times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and nearly twice as safe as a penicillin injection (AGI, 2004; Rock & Jones, 2003; Paul et al., 1999; Gold, 1990).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Now, whether you get your statistics from the Right to Life of Michigan, or Planned Parenthood, the results are the same. The number of women dying from abortions is not significant, compared to the number of fetuses that die from abortions. Again, this goes back to the definition of a baby. If you think a fetus is a baby, legalizing abortion would kill a far greater number of babies, than the number of women dying from abortions. If you think a fetus is not a baby, then this is a small argument in favor of abortions.

Steel_Troll · May 2005

Told you ageri couldnt resist to post in here again, that was 5 posts by my count:) and i brought up some more issues with ageris last post towards me, on why the red cross didnt mean SA was developed, did he comment? Obviously not. GG, what does he do? Ignore them and just say "OMG No00b..."

He fails to argue, he imposes.
Legionaired, this thread was going very smoothly, till Ageri decided to tell me, very brashly, that my argument was total bollocks, i have not flamed back at all and do not intend to.

As for other goings on? who knows...

Nice argument you brought there Legion. And hmm, the clam, could you have ddisproved Cyndane about something? :O
g2g.

Cyndane · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ May 11 2005, 12:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I have to say that you're wrong, Cyndane.

<a href='http://www.rtl.org/html/Abortion/abortion_stats.html' target='_blank'>http://www.rtl.org/html/Abortion/abortion_stats.html</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In 1978, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology stated the legalization of abortion "has had no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion" since the results of a study they completed showed that over 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
<a href='http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-medical-social-benefits.xml' target='_blank'>http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/porta...al-benefits.xml</a>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> * In 1965, when abortion was still illegal nationwide except in cases of life endangerment, at least 193 women died from illegal abortions, and illegal abortion accounted for nearly 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth in that year (NCHS, 1967).

* In 1973, the risk of dying from an abortion was 3.4 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions. This rate fell to 1.3 by 1977 (Gold, 1990). Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures, and the current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestation is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. This is eleven times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and nearly twice as safe as a penicillin injection (AGI, 2004; Rock & Jones, 2003; Paul et al., 1999; Gold, 1990).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Now, whether you get your statistics from the Right to Life of Michigan, or Planned Parenthood, the results are the same. The number of women dying from abortions is not significant, compared to the number of fetuses that die from abortions. Again, this goes back to the definition of a baby. If you think a fetus is a baby, legalizing abortion would kill a far greater number of babies, than the number of women dying from abortions. If you think a fetus is not a baby, then this is a small argument in favor of abortions.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Actually theclam that backs it up nicely.

With illegal abortion it accounted for 17% of pregnancy related deaths, and yet just a couple years later with more refined practices as with all medical operations, that number fell sharply. (Not to mention that your study shows in '67 they were clincal operations, which means doctors were disobeying the law as well) Abortions were legalized in 1973, therefore they were done in clinical applications.

<a href='http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/&e=7317' target='_blank'>Roe v Wade</a>

Now take brazil or south africa, they are illegal (and there are almost no doctors performing them in clinical situations) and the mortality rate while using illegal abortions is much higher, why? They are not done clinically.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Besides, your argument is based on a false dilemma. You claim that a woman will get an abortion no matter what, and some women will die doing it in an unsafe manner.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If they woman really doesn't want the baby, she will have an abortion no matter what, I think you can agree with that. Statement still stands, if she does it herself she is more likely to hurt herself and the potential baby.

That is the point I am trying to make, you outlaw abortions, there will be no reason to research how to make it an easy proccess to go through, thereby possibly causing more harm.

@Troll: Ageri never addressed you once in his previous posts, because him like myself have given up on showing you how ignorant you are of the world. We both have posted many different sources (his are better then mine since he has ready access to medical journals) showing this.

theclam · May 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ May 11 2005, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Actually theclam that backs it up nicely.

With illegal abortion it accounted for 17% of pregnancy related deaths, and yet just a couple years later with more refined practices as with all medical operations, that number fell sharply. (Not to mention that your study shows in '67 they were clincal operations, which means doctors were disobeying the law as well) Abortions were legalized in 1973, therefore they were done in clinical applications.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
No, it doesn't back you up.

In 1965, 193 women died from abortions. In 1977, about 13 women died from abortions. Now, about 7 women die from abortions per year. That's a change of about 186 deaths per year.

In 1972, there were 586,760 abortions. In 1996 there were 1,210,883 abortions. That's a change of 624,123 deaths per year.

The number of women who die each year is inconsequential compared to the number of fetuses that die each year.

Cyndane · May 2005

It proves that less women died from abortions when they were legalized compared to when they were not. Which is the entire point I was trying to make.

I never said anything about comparing fetuses to women dying.

Venmoch · May 2005

I think however there is one problem in this debate.

How many of you actually have a uterus?

Until we all have uterus's and can actully experience childbirth I don't think the males have a leg to stand on in either side of the debate. Let the women decide what to do with their uterus. After all, we don't have any real reason to be playing about in there anyway.

Abortion

Comments